The 2026 Ohio Wine Competition: A Behind‑the‑Scenes Review
Wednesday, June 10th, 2026
By: Lisa Dunlap, OSU-HCS
This year marked my first time coordinating and directing the Ohio Wine Competition. After shadowing Todd Steiner, our former director, for several years, I thought I had a solid grasp of what I was stepping into. I quickly learned I had underestimated just how much work goes into orchestrating an event of this scale. But once the whirlwind of organizing hundreds of wines settled, the competition itself unfolded smoothly and successfully.
To offer full transparency into how this event comes together from start to finish, I wanted to share an inside look at the operations, decisions, and logistics behind the 2026 Ohio Wine Competition.
A New Host Site and New Tools
For many years, Kent State Ashtabula graciously hosted the competition. When they were unable to do so this year, we faced two options:
-
Host the event through The Ohio State University Enology Extension, or
-
Outsource the judging to a third party competition in another state.
OSU Enology Extension proposed a plan to host the event in Wooster, and the Ohio Grape Industries Committee (OGIC) approved it. The board also voted to adopt Enofile, a widely used wine competition management software. Both decisions were finalized on January 14, 2026.
Early Preparations: Registration, Categories, and Communication Challenges
Once approved, the first major task was registering with Enofile. Communication delays slowed progress, and setting up our competition categories proved more complex than expected. Our types of categories were not what Enofile typically handles, and I also requested an additional field to quickly identify Ohio-made wines eligible for OQW (Ohio Quality Wine seal). After several rounds of adjustments, the system became workable and clear.
Online registration went smoothly overall, with only a few wineries experiencing issues. If we continue using Enofile in future years, we plan to provide more explicit instructions to streamline the process.
Securing a Venue
Finding a hotel in Wooster that could accommodate our event and accept a temporary F3 permit was another early hurdle. Several hotels declined due to permit restrictions or insufficient event space. Ultimately, the Hilton Garden Inn proved to be the perfect fit, conveniently located across from campus wine storage, just large enough for our needs, and staffed by an incredibly friendly and supportive team. I would gladly host the competition there again.
Selecting Judges
The OGIC board approves a list of judges each year. I added several new names to the list, which the board approved. From that list, I selected 12 judges. When one judge had to withdraw shortly before the event, we secured an alternate recommended by an experienced Ohio Wine Competition judge, an excellent addition who performed exceptionally well.
Record Participation and the Mountain of Wine
Registration closed on May 1, 2026, with 59 wineries submitting 523 entries, a record number. My cooler filled rapidly until there was barely room to walk. At one point I simply stared at the stacks of boxes thinking,“What have I gotten myself into?”
Enofile assigned each wine a four-digit code. We printed labels for bottles and judges’ glasses, then organized the wines into four judging panels, each with two experienced judges and one newer judge. Panels were color-coded to match bottle and glass labels.
Sorting, labeling, and paneling the wines took roughly 50 hours. After separating samples for chemical analysis and boxing wines by panel, everything was stored until transport to the hotel.
Flighting the Wines: A Puzzle of Its Own
At the hotel, we set up four long rows of tables, one per panel, and arranged wines in flight order. While Enofile assisted with flighting, the final organization happened in Excel. This step was surprisingly challenging. Many wines were entered into incorrect categories (for example: Sauvignon Blancs listed under American grape categories, dry wines entered as sweet, Cabernet Francs placed in general dry red classes instead of their varietal class).
In total, I corrected around 128 miscategorized wines before judging began. Unfortunetly, I wasn’t able to catch all of them, but I did my best with the information given. For next year, I plan to simplify and reduce the number of categories to make registration clearer and grouping more intuitive.
Judging Days
Most judges arrived the evening before the competition. Over dinner, we reviewed procedures and prepared for a full day of tasting. Judges used the UC Davis 20-point scale and wrote detailed comments for each wine. After scoring individually, each panel discussed the wines to reach a consensus medal:
-
17–20 points: Gold
-
15–16 points: Silver
-
13–14 points: Bronze
-
12 points: Above-average commercial wine
-
10–11 points: Average wine
-
7–9 points: Below average
-
3–6 points: Poor to very poor
-
1–2 points: Undrinkable
A wine receiving unanimous gold ratings earned a Double Gold. This year, 28 wines achieved that distinction and advanced to Best of Show.
To ensure the integrity of the judging process, all wines were evaluated under strict blind tasting conditions. Judges did not have access to the section of the room where the bottled wines were stored, and at no point were they able to see labels, winery names, or identifying information for any of the samples. Wines were presented only by their assigned codes, allowing judges to focus solely on the sensory characteristics in the glass without influence from branding, reputation, or prior knowledge. The wines were poured and served by our volunteer staff members to maintain anonymity of the wines.
Best of Show
On day two, all Double Gold wines were presented to judges simultaneously. Judges evaluated each wine, discussed them by category, and then voted for their top two wines in each class. If the first-place wine in a category was not Ohio-made (which happened only once this year), the second-place wine received the Best of Ohio award.
A Judge’s Reflection
One judge captured the spirit of this year’s competition beautifully, and I highlighted a major point that was expressed by the judges this year.
“Each panel tasted about 150 wines across two days. And one thing that was clear is, good wine is good. When an exceptional wine comes across the table it demands attention and it's really a delight to experience. We had a huge variety of wines in both style and quality. There were a few heartbreaking wines that I tasted and loved what their potential was but we tasted months too early. It's an interesting thing, scoring the wine in front of me, not the wine I want to be in front of me later this year. Not every wine needs to be thought provoking, but every wine should at least be made with an attentive hand.”
-Tony Jacobson, EnoCraft
My Notes
I just want to say that I had a great time directing the competition this year. It was a learning curve, and I appreciate all of you involved for your patience and understanding this year. I believe future years will be a lot smoother. I wanted to note a few things. A consistent theme noted by judges this year was the number of wines showing signs of “bottle shock,” a temporary condition that can occur after a wine has been recently bottled, transported, or otherwise handled extensively. Bottle shock can mute aromas, flatten flavors, and make wine seem less expressive than intended. In addition, several entries appeared to be simply too young, not yet given sufficient time to integrate and develop in the bottle before evaluation. In both cases, judges were mindful to assess the wine as presented in the glass, while recognizing that some of these wines may evolve significantly over time and show much more favorably with additional aging.
I collected score sheets with any/all judges comments for each wine. I plan to go through these papers and record all notes to provide to each winery along with chemical analyses. If there are questions about medals awarded after you see the notes and the chemical analyses, we can set up times to discuss how to improve your processes. I plan to have all chemical analyses and notes recorded by the beginning of August. Medal results were sent out to the entrants shortly after the competition concluded. I apologize for sending the raw data, and I thank Christy Eckstein for providing the well-formatted version of the results this year. If you have any questions regarding the competition, please feel free to contact me. Thank you!
